News Is Climate Change Real? Polling Public Opinion on the Controversial Issue

[Bystander]

From edward's link:
http://www.igsoc.org/news/pressreleases/200603a.html ,

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year,"' Zwally said. "Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from.(emphasis added) Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue and help solve the mystery."

No mystery. Global losses of wetlands in the 20th century are estimated to be millions of square kilometers (How many millions? One to ten if uncertainties in definitions are counted honestly; three to five if "best guesses" count.); one to two million square kilometers of agricultural land have been waterlogged as a result of poor irrigation practices; the U.S. has pumped groundwater at a rate of 1000 km³/a for the past 20 years (Dept. of Interior); the global groundwater extraction rate is currently estimated to be 2000 - 3000 km³/a.

Aquifer recharge rates? Hydrologists estimate the average recharge time to be around 3000 years; the IPCC assumes recharge rates in excess of 90% of withdrawal rates; a S. African study suggests 5 - 15% of rainfall over recharge areas reached the studied aquifer; a study in northern China observed a mass balance between rainfall plus withdrawal and transpired water losses from cropped areas above an area with no overlying aquaclude; San Diego's municipal water supply is drawn from a managed aquifer that is recharged with treated sewage and storm runoff pumped to an artificial reservoir constructed over the recharge zone, achieving a 90% recharge rate; Modern Marvels on water quotes one extremely alarmist viewpoint that existing aquifers are going to be dry or at unpumpable (economically) levels in 20 years.

Water volumes from lost wetlands (minus waterlogged agricultural areas) plus those lost to pumping from aquifers? 4-40 thousand km³ plus 30 - 60 thousand (75 and 50% recharge rates).

And, where did all that water go? Total annihilation of matter when flushed (a la Al Gore's "toilet law" for water conservation), or into the ocean and ice caps?

 

[Kirsten-B]

LOLOL! This cracks me up...
I let someone from another country sign me up into this forum because I was having problems doing it and they spelled my name wrong... Where I am from Kristen is female, so is Kirsten, so is Christian which is sometimes male but usually Christopher is male.
My name is Kristen and I am from Portland, Maine, USA and I am female.

 

[arildno]

Christian/Kristian/Christoffer/Kristoffer/Krister are exclusively male over here, whereas Christiane/Kristiane/Kristine/Kristin/Kristel are exclusively female..

 

[Kirsten-B]

A family member that I was joking about this with remembers the next door neighbor's daughter named Christian in California. I guess that is what you get when you live in the "melting pot."

 

[Kirsten-B]

Andre,

I wanted to add Dr. Schneider to Ponder the Maunder but could not find him quoted in a study or congressional record as warning about cooling ourselves into an ice age.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

I wanted to add Dr. Schneider to Ponder the Maunder but could not find him quoted in a study or congressional record as warning about cooling ourselves into an ice age.

This is what you're looking for, Kristen

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider (1971). "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate." Science 173: 138-141.

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

 

[Kirsten-B]

That's it! Can you send me the study or link please?

 

[siddharth]

My name is Kristen Byrnes, I am the High School student that wrote Ponder the Maunder that was posted in another thread.

Hi Kristen. Your report was interesting to read. I've got some questions on the content in that report. Since you're a member here, is it fine with you if I post the questions in this forum, or do you wish it to be mailed through your webpage?

 

[Andre]

That's it! Can you send me the study or link please?

The abstract is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

I have no key to that place currently. Perhaps somebody else?

 

[Astronuc]

Some data on air here and some discussion of GW.

http://www.uigi.com/air.html

The component of air which has the greatest variation in its percentage of the gases in air is water vapor, or humidity. The maximum amount of water vapor that can be present in air varies with air temperature; but the the amount of water vapor actually present in air will depend on a number of other factors. To illustrate, warm air over a lake in the summer may contain close to the maximum amount of water vapor for the air temperature. But air at that temperature in a desert will contain very little.

I believe we typically experience rel. hum. levels of 30-50%. At the moment it's 30%.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/

For decades human factories and cars have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the climate has begun to show some signs of warming. Many see this as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don’t curb our greenhouse gas emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could change, hurricanes could become more frequent, and El Niños could become more intense.

On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists’ measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming.

In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios. But to gain an understanding of global warming, it is necessary to get to know the science behind the issue.

 

[Evo]

Well as you can see the article i cited was very recent, and may just show a boom/bust pop curve that happens all the time for various factors. Thats the thing, warmer waters favor one species which is a food source for another, they can go up in synchrony for a bit, even if the longer term effects are skewed against the higher member on the food chain. I think whaling had a lot to do with the seal explosion and possibly penguins as well. All points out what an impossily difficult task climatoligists, Earth scientists and biologists have at any concordance--sort of like the seven blind men and an elephant routine.

Excellent reasoning, how do we select which animals will live and die? There is actually something in the 2001 article which I found strange about the ice sheets being too extensive and being a major reason the penguin population was decreasing. I'll post it later.

EDIT: Here it is.

"Although higher levels of sea ice increase the food supply, such conditions have a negative effect on reproduction because emperor penguins hatch fewer eggs when sea ice is more extensive.

After laying eggs, a female travels across the ice and out to sea to feed on krill, fish and squid that she regurgitates to feed her young. The male keeps the eggs warm until she returns. But when the sea ice is extensive, the female may be gone for months. The male eventually gives into his hunger and abandons the egg or chick.

Thus, as the scientists note in their paper in Nature, extensive sea ice poses a trade-off for emperor penguins. In population terms, its nutritional advantage, which favors higher survival and further reproduction, "outmatches its physical disadvantage of reducing fecundity," they write."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0509_penguindecline.html

Also I meant to say this was a very good post of yours https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1292261&postcount=18

Nice to see someone looking at things from more than one side. It doesn't matter if a person leans one way or another, but to shut down all common sense and entrench yourself in a rut that you can't climb out of makes no sense. That's why I sit on top of the fence, it allows me to see what's happening on all sides.

 

[Kirsten-B]

Hi Kristen. Your report was interesting to read. I've got some questions on the content in that report. Since you're a member here, is it fine with you if I post the questions in this forum, or do you wish it to be mailed through your webpage?

No problem, ask away if you want, here is fine

 

[Ratzinger]

Maybe this thread might be interested in who is this year winner of the http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01" .

 

[Bystander]

Maybe this thread might be interested in who is this year winner of the http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01" .

This keeps coming up --- see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108514 for more discussion.

Federal employees do NOT make policy statements and continue in the employ of the federal government.

 

[Andre]

This keeps coming up --- see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108514 for more discussion.

Federal employees do NOT make policy statements and continue in the employ of the federal government.

Shall we reverse that?

We have just been looking at why the consensus is so strong in the IPCC, 3000 scientitist all agree...90% sure? Baloney

The IPCC max number of authors co writers and authors referred to was indeed some 3000 years ago mid 1990ies when there was only some caution about possible warming. Nobody talked about consensus then - prior to the hockeystick. The current 4AR has some 300 authors. We're planning to do a poll/research out there:

What happened to the 2700?
1: died, retired, other work. no time, resigned due to other reasons than 2 (hence indifferent)
2: resigned because of disagreement with the consensus or not accepting malpractice (I know a few).
3: not invited back due to
3a: incompetence / lack of output
3b: opposing the consensus.

We may have found us another can of worms

 

[drankin]

LOL, so they had to weed out 2700 so they could get the consensus they were looking for. Figures.

 

[edward]

This keeps coming up --- see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108514 for more discussion.

Federal employees do NOT make policy statements and continue in the employ of the federal government.

No one was trying to make s federal a policy statement in this incident. The 24 year old man who was censuring NASA had even lied on his resume about having a college degree. He is typical of this secretive administrations appointed stooges.

That aside NASA is speaking out now.

SPIEGEL: You've made the point that we have only 10 more years to prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Why?

Hansen: Let's contrast two different scenarios. The first one I call business-as-usual which is the typical UN scenario. It shows a continued increase in the annual emissions of CO2 of about 1 or 2 percent per year. That's what leads you to at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius global warming in this century. An alternative scenario is designed to keep global warming at about one additional degree or less. It requires that CO2 emissions actually decrease on a global average by at least a few tens of percent by mid-century. By the end of the century, you have to stabilize things, which means you would need a 60 to 80 percent reduction in emissions

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,476275,00.html

 

[Bystander]

No one was trying to make s federal a policy statement in this incident. The 24 year old man who was censuring NASA had even lied on his resume about having a college degree. He is typical of this secretive administrations appointed stooges.

That aside NASA is speaking out now.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,476275,00.html

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

That's a policy statement, "The Hansen Policy." It ain't the policy of the federal government. Implicit in "The Hansen Policy" are restrictions on any inquiry into other causes for existing observations.

 

[jamie4w]

The study of oxygen isotopes as a method of analysing has provided much insight on glacial and interglacial cycles, throughout the quaternary period
Individually these techniques may not prove 100% accurate and may all have flaws. Most of the quaternary period has been unaffected by anthropogenic activities, the recent pollution and degradation to the planet may have major impacts. Due to the fact that previous climates of the quaternary period having no relationship with man it is hard to say

 

[edward]

That's a policy statement, "The Hansen Policy." It ain't the policy of the federal government. Implicit in "The Hansen Policy" are restrictions on any inquiry into other causes for existing observations.

I dnon't see where [B,]your lablel,[/B] "The Hansen Policy" restricts anyone in anyway.

 

[edward]

Scrips poll

Scripps has it's own poll. You can check out the opinion of others here.

http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/

 

[Evo]

Apparently there was a debate recently with a panel of experts debating for and against AGW, those arguing against won.

"In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

Thanks to Skyhunter for the link. I'm going to listen to the debate when I have some free time.

 

[Gokul43201]

Apparently there was a debate recently with a panel of experts debating for and against AGW, those arguing against won.

Actually, both sides agreed that there is an anthropogenic component to the warming. The debate was more specifically about whether or not we are presently at a crisis.

 

[Art]

Another global warming prediction bites the dust,

Kilimanjaro's ice set to linger
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, Vienna

A fresh assessment suggests the famous ice fields on Africa's tallest mountain will be around for decades yet.
Recent concerns that climate warming would rob Mount Kilimanjaro of all its glaciers within 20 years are overly pessimistic, say Austrian scientists.

Their weather station data and modelling work indicate the tropical ice should last well beyond 2040.

Precipitation and not temperature is the key to the white peak's future, the University of Innsbruck-led team says.

"About five years ago Kilimanjaro was being used as an icon for global warming. We know now that this was far too simplistic a view," said Thomas Moelg.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6561527.stm

Published: 2007/04/17 05:45:47 GMT

© BBC MMVII
Reminds me of the antarctic ice debacle - Global warming theory predicted the ice would increase due to greater precipitation and when inititial studies supported this it was claimed as a proof of the GW theory. A new study using the latest GRACE satellite (it measures minute changes in gravity) showed that the ice was actually decreasing so without batting an eyelid the GW brigade claimed this was due to GW. A case of heads I win tails you lose!

 

[Skyhunter]

Reminds me of the antarctic ice debacle - Global warming theory predicted the ice would increase due to greater precipitation and when inititial studies supported this it was claimed as a proof of the GW theory. A new study using the latest GRACE satellite (it measures minute changes in gravity) showed that the ice was actually decreasing so without batting an eyelid the GW brigade claimed this was due to GW. A case of heads I win tails you lose!

Art, you are oversimplifying and distorting the science.

Scientists do not offer proof of anything, they offer theories.

Both observations are consistent with the theory.

The glacier is growing inland because of more precipitation. The likely (99%) cause of this increased precipitation is warmer air over open water, resulting in higher water content in the atmosphere.

The decrease in overall mass from melting is also consistent with the warmer temperatures.

There just is no contradiction.

 

[Andre]

Art, you are oversimplifying and distorting the science.

Scientists do not offer proof of anything, they offer theories.

Both observations are consistent with the theory.

The glacier is growing inland because of more precipitation. The likely (99%) cause of this increased precipitation is warmer air over open water, resulting in higher water content in the atmosphere.

The decrease in overall mass from melting is also consistent with the warmer temperatures.

There just is no contradiction.

nevertheless, whether the Anarctic ice sheet is melting or shrinking, it is always caused by global warming:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/

It is suggested that funding studies is greatly enhanced when you add "proof of global warming" in the thesis question.

 

[Mk]

Art, you are oversimplifying and distorting the science.

I don't think it sounds like either of you are wrong, it's just two biases.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't think it sounds like either of you are wrong, it's just two biases.

Art offers nothing to back up his assertion that the GW brigade (whoever that is) flip flopped here.

I simply pointed out that both observations are consistent with the theory and always have been.

 

[randomness]

Well let's be fair now.

Some scientists with guts, who lost their job because they refused to be a part of the hype are:

George Taylor, state climatologist Oregon

Well to be fair George Taylor is not the state climatologist for Oregon. No such actual position exists. He is the head of the Oregon Climate Service department by Oregon State University. While AASC recognizes Taylor as a state climatologist this is not the same thing as being one of them.

 

[Andre]

George will be happy to hear that. He was told that his position was being redefined and he had no idea what that was supposed to be.